MCKENZIE
v.
CREWS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the case as malicious and an abuse of process due to the plaintiff's failure to disclose her litigation history.
Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint but failed to completely and honestly disclose her prior litigation history on the required form. The magistr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff's "Appeal Dismissal" (Doc. 7), "Objections" (Doc. 8), and "Appeal Dismissal Claims Ford/Crews" (Doc. 10). The Court reviewed the issues raised in Plaintiff's filings de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, [fn 1] the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that this case should be dismissed as malicious and an abuse of the judicial process based on Plaintiff's failure to completely and honestly disclose her litigation history. See Burrell v. Warden, 857 F. App'x 624, 625 (11th Cir. 2021) (“An action is malicious when a prisoner misrepresents his prior litigation history on a complaint form requiring disclosure of such history and signs the complaint under penalty of perjury, as such a complaint is an abuse of the judicial process.").
The Court did not overlook Plaintiff's argument that she is not a lawyer and has limited education, but that is not an excuse for her failure to completely disclose her litigation history because the litigation history questions on the civil rights complaint form are clear and unambiguous and do not require a legal education to answer. See Merritt v. Dep't of Corr., 2020 WL 6703794, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2020) (rejecting a similar argument).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious and an abuse of process under 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1).
4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2024.
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: Plaintiff requested oral argument on the issues raised in her post-R&R filings, see Doc. 9, but the Court sees no need for it.